Paul's view on Cables, Audio Precision Analyzer, etc.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Iving said:

You seem to be missing the point @mansr

Was I supposed to keep quiet?

[John Dyson]

38 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

In another forum on ethernet cables and switches, the 'subjectivists' were compared to anti-vaxxers by an 'objectivist' which I found incredibly insulting. The assumption becomes that those who hear differences beyond the DAC are totally anti-science which couldn't be farther from the truth. Personally I believe we just haven't figured out what to measure yet, in regards to sound (not data throughput), if ever.

 

It's like camera lenses - MTF charts and coma and fringing measurements don't tell the whole story, of how the lens actually renders in real life situations. Sure, one can tell how sharp, soft etc but not the things that render an image as an emotional experience via that particular pice of glass. That can only be determined with actual use, and it will vary depending on camera body used, the various lighting situations etc and the photographers final intent. 

 

Granted if a user 'perceives' no change in a device, how is that any different than somebody who 'perceives' one? If we could just leave it that - 'the eR made no change in my system" or 'it changed it for the worse' or 'the eR made the sound so much better' that would be great. But too often the objectivists seem to go on some sort of recalcitrant campaign to prove the other side delusional-  it gets really tiresome. And of course its human nature to then defend ones own experiences. 

 

John has it right above - it would be great if both sides could learn from each other. But from my experience its sadly been mostly a one way street. 

Anecdote, very recent event...

First, admittedly my engineering life is mostly objective.  However, sometimes a correspondent will mention that some results do not sound correct.  Man, it can really be a body-blow, and takes me a few minutes to quit the emotional response.  More often than not, that frustrating subjective observation is definitely finding something 'odd' or 'wrong'.   The problem for us who tend towards objective analysis is that we don't always know how to measure everything.  There are so many nuances in certain kinds of design that a measurment device that measures 'everything' important about a design or product just does not exist.   Some measurements are impractical to make.

----

Remember this true anecdote from the deep past (in the early '70s):

 

For those locked into objective and subjective thought -- EITHER ONE -- BOTH need to remember what happened about TIM (Transient intermodulation distortion), often a component of slew induced distortion/internal slew limits.

 

The pure objectivist should remember that sometimes we don't know how to measure everything.  Listen to the subjectivist, because sometimes they are giving critical information that could be helpful.  TIM isn't measured very well by the traditional HD measurement techniques, even IMD techniques have troubles.   As designs concepts change, then various things become more or less of a challenge (e.g. high transconductances like BJT transistors vs. vacuum tubes lower transconductances can seem an improvement, but also can encourage the slew induced distortion above.)

The pure subjectivist should remember that if a difference can be heard, then eventually we should try to figure out why.   Be aware and sensitive that the objectivist wants to do everything accurately and correctly, and even they can have also negative emotional responses. Often become frustrated that their works haven't done as well as they had hoped.  We might not know now (maybe never) how to objectively detect the failing as described by the subjectivist, but the objectivist will try to at least verify and understand.  The subjectivist should have more faith in the objective way of thinking also.

-----------------

If both parties can bridge the two major ways of thinking, then the mutual understanding would be improved.  No one is 100% correct all of the time.  Myself, I am less correct than most people, most of the time, but I keep on trying to do things  :-).

 

John

 

 

 

[Blake]

I enjoyed both interviews.  The interesting tidbits to me from the two interviews:

 

1. PS Audio has the Audio Precision Analyzer.  Paul says the AP will show no measured differences when Ted Smith updates operating system code for PS Audio's Directstream DAC, yet it seems users definitely hear differences between different firmware code versions.

 

2. None of the engineers polled by Darko (PS Audio, Simaudio, MBL, HEED, Gordon Rankin) sell usb cables, but all say audible differences can exist between usb cables.  So they don't have a financial interest in making those claims.

 

3. Simaudio's Costa Koulisakis seems to be very much in the objective, measurement camp, but still believes usb cables can make audible differences.

 

I agree with what John Dyson wrote earlier. My current thinking is, all the objective/subject debates revolve around the issue of whether the current measurement gear available today is capable of measuring every single sonic aspect/element that humans can perceive.  This also assumes we can characterize all aspects of sound and then set up measurement parameters for all of these sonic aspects.

 

If you believe we can measure all sonic aspects, then game over.  Things become very simple.  It also follows that if two components measure the same, they will sound 100% identical (identical sound staging, imaging, same sense of the acoustical space where the music was recorded, same amount of detail, timbre, tonal balance etc.).

 

If you believe there are at least some sonic aspects we cannot measure (even if say, we can measure 95% of what humans can detect), then things are not so straight-forward and one has to rely on our subjective observations for those aspects we cannot measure. 

 

Isn't it really as simple as that?  And regardless of which camp you are in, we should not draw battle lines over this issue.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Anecdote, very recent event...

First, admittedly my engineering life is mostly objective.  However, sometimes a correspondent will mention that some results do not sound correct.  Man, it can really be a body-blow, and takes me a few minutes to quit the emotional response.  More often than not, that frustrating subjective observation is definitely finding something 'odd' or 'wrong'.   The problem for us who tend towards objective analysis is that we don't always know how to measure everything.  There are so many nuances in certain kinds of design that a measurment device that measures 'everything' important about a design or product just does not exist.   Some measurements are impractical to make.

----

Remember this true anecdote from the deep past (in the early '70s):

 

For those locked into objective and subjective thought -- EITHER ONE -- BOTH need to remember what happened about TIM (Transient intermodulation distortion), often a component of slew induced distortion/internal slew limits.

 

The pure objectivist should remember that sometimes we don't know how to measure everything.  Listen to the subjectivist, because sometimes they are giving critical information that could be helpful.  TIM isn't measured very well by the traditional HD measurement techniques, even IMD techniques have troubles.   As designs concepts change, then various things become more or less of a challenge (e.g. high transconductances like BJT transistors vs. vacuum tubes lower transconductances can seem an improvement, but also can encourage the slew induced distortion above.)

The pure subjectivist should remember that if a difference can be heard, then eventually we should try to figure out why.   Be aware and sensitive that the objectivist wants to do everything accurately and correctly, and even they can have also negative emotional responses. Often become frustrated that their works haven't done as well as they had hoped.  We might not know now (maybe never) how to objectively detect the failing as described by the subjectivist, but the objectivist will try to at least verify and understand.  The subjectivist should have more faith in the objective way of thinking also.

-----------------

If both parties can bridge the two major ways of thinking, then the mutual understanding would be improved.  No one is 100% correct all of the time.  Myself, I am less correct than most people, most of the time, but I keep on trying to do things  :-).

 

John

 

 

 

Well said John.

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, Blake said:

I enjoyed both interviews.  The interesting tidbits to me from the two interviews:

 

1. PS Audio has the Audio Precision Analyzer.  Paul says the AP will show no measured differences when Ted Smith updates operating system code for PS Audio's Directstream DAC, yet it seems users definitely hear differences between different firmware code versions.

 

2. None of the engineers polled by Darko (PS Audio, Simaudio, MBL, Gordon Rankin) sell usb cables, but all say audible differences can exist between usb cables.  So they don't have a financial interest in making those claims.

 

3. Simaudio's Costa Koulisakis seems to be very much in the objective, measurement camp, but still believes usb cables can make audible differences.

 

My current thinking is, all the objective/subject debates revolve around the issue of whether the current measurement gear available today is capable of measuring every single sonic aspect/element that humans can perceive.  This also assumes we can characterize all aspects of sound and then set up measurement parameters for all of these sonic aspects.

 

If you believe we can measure all sonic aspects, then game over.  Things become very simple.  It also follows that if two components measure the same, they will sound 100% identical (identical sound staging, imaging, same amount of detail, timbre, tonal balance etc.).

 

If you believe there are at least some sonic aspects we cannot measure (even if say, we can measure 95% of what humans can detect), then things are not so straight-forward and one has to rely on our subjective observations for those aspects we cannot measure. 

 

Isn't it really as simple as that?

 

 

It seems like it should be that simple (or almost that simple). The problems arise when people on the extremes of the continuum push their beliefs on others. 

 

I don't believe in any higher power. I have no problem with others believing in a higher power or even the tooth fairy. I have no desire to find a tooth fairy forum and tell them they are all crazy. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

43 minutes ago, mansr said:

I don't feel stifled if others disagree. I feel stifled when they tell me to shut up.

I would feel stifled in that case as well. However, most on both sides don't use the words shut up. They weave a couple paragraphs or sentences that say everything except shut up and it has the same effect. 

[charlesphoto]

@John Dyson

 

I'm curious how much you think the local environment might come into play as well, since it seems many of have theorized the differences (in cables esp) are down to the shielding of EM/RF etc.? For example, I work from home (photographer) so have a lot more banks of hard drives, computers, printers, etc all in close proximity to the networking gear and hifi(s). And if I snoop, there's at least a dozen or more wifi signals we're picking up from our urban-ish environment. I see it as yet another possible factor to be reasoned into the scientific analysis of the cable and switch sound theories. Which of course would be infinitely variable among consumers. 

[charlesphoto]

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I would feel stifled in that case as well. However, most on both sides don't use the words shut up. They weave a couple paragraphs or sentences that say everything except shut up and it has the same effect. 

 

Yes, we all need to knock off the semantic dinging, which imo is the last resort of those who have nothing, and may as well constitute a 'shut up.' Just saw that big time from one side during a certain 'trial' that happened recently (and that's as far as I'll bring politics into this, and I'm not saying it doesn't happen on both sides of our argument). 

[John Dyson]

Just now, charlesphoto said:

@John Dyson

 

I'm curious how much you think the local environment might come into play as well, since it seems many of have theorized the differences (in cables esp) are down to the shielding of EM/RF etc.? For example, I work from home (photographer) so have a lot more banks of hard drives, computers, printers, etc all in close proximity to the networking gear and hifi(s). And if I snoop, there's at least a dozen or more wifi signals we're picking up from our urban-ish environment. I see it as yet another possible factor to be reasoned into the scientific analysis of the cable and switch sound theories. Which of course would be infinitely variable among consumers. 

Back in the days when consumer products didn't consider RF much in their design (in the late '60s early '70s), I lived near a 316kW ERP High VHF TV transmitter (about 1 mile away), and it played havoc with any rats nest type prototype circuits, and even troubles above 100kHz, with the white strips unless in a box -- only talking about 1-10Mhz clocks at most, and maybe 100-200MHz at most.   My LSI-11 that I bought in about '76 or '77 gave our family the choice of watching TV or me using my computer.  The LSI-11, when turned on, was incompatible with watching TV.  (I mean, TOTALLY incompatible.)

 

My example above, about when growing up, shows the existence proof that RFI can be a major issue.   At least we have conqured the worst of the problems, and higher UHF frequencies tend to cause fewer problems in many cases, but as we have moved higher and higher in frequency, our components are smaller and smaller geometry (making them effective at higher frequencies), and we demand greater true accuracy in our audio.

 

So, the EMI/EMC issue haven't gone away, and we have gotten better at electronmagnetic compatibility, but radiated, coupled and conducted noise are still problems to be aware of.

 

If you are looking at 16bits of audio accuracy at today's sample rates, yes EM* can definitely be a problem, and it is likely that your signals are being affected today, but hopefully not at a level that is bothersome.

 

Noise induced through ANY entry point (transition points in cables, jacks, openings in cabinents, even internal design issues) can/will still happen if given a chance.  Defensive engineering/defensive design and/or actual design experience is so very important.  For example, I am really a pretty good expert at 'from scratch' analog circuit design, but that is totally, very different from designing a product, packaging, connections, etc.   A fully practicing  electronics engineer with current product experience is your best bet in creating a good, reliable and robust product.  I might be able to help the engineer in specific technical design problems, but I am not qualified, with only ancient experience, to do the full job of consumer electronics product design.   Real electronics product design is different from circuit design, even though well designed electronic circuits is a necessary component of the electronics product.

 

So, all of the noise, quality, etc issues -- they can still be troublesome.  We must still depend on our competent and honest electrical engineers, packaging and human factors people, etc.

 

John

 

[charlesphoto]

Great reasoned response John. And I would imagine this design amelioration can come at a cost, so if one is not prepared or financially able to go up the ladder like that, then more inexpensive techniques (such as using a used commercial switch) can be of benefit. 

[Ralf11]

you may be interested in the Leica rendering thread I started a few days ago

 

you mentioned other WiFi signals... they are not very likely to constitute a noise source in your equipment - you can ''see' them because they are recognizable by your own WiFi system which is designed to pick up those signals at as low a level as possible

 

the visual analogy would be enough light to see by not causing sunburn

[tapatrick]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

Anecdote, very recent event...First, admittedly my engineering life is mostly objective. 

John

Thanks for your informative, educational and refreshing posts John. 

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

Audiophile hobbyists who are involved in their own system improvements can benefit from both an objectivist and subjectivist viewpoint, but alas emotional religion gets in the way too often.

 

John

 

 

 That doesn't prevent some of us from working well together though.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

@John Dyson

 

I'm curious how much you think the local environment might come into play as well, since it seems many of have theorized the differences (in cables esp) are down to the shielding of EM/RF etc.? For example, I work from home (photographer) so have a lot more banks of hard drives, computers, printers, etc all in close proximity to the networking gear and hifi(s). And if I snoop, there's at least a dozen or more wifi signals we're picking up from our urban-ish environment. I see it as yet another possible factor to be reasoned into the scientific analysis of the cable and switch sound theories. Which of course would be infinitely variable among consumers. 

 

Good discussion going on ... from my viewpoint where most people in this game quite resoundingly "miss the point" is that they want to narrow down on a specific item, area, or "thing" that is all-important, that guarantees a result, one way or the other - both subjectivists and objectivists suffer from this, as I see it. I don't know how many times I've been abused for not "giving away my secrets" over the years, that there's a magic formula somehow involved - I say, the magic formula is that I consider everything to be important - and the usual response is, there you go again, Frank, talking BS!! ...people just want life to be a simple set of Yes/No decisions, and if they're all ticked - then you will Live Happily, Ever After ...

 

You can make it simple ... something I do, 😉 ... listen, does what you hearing Always Sound Right - if Yes, then Enjoy, 😁 ... if No, then there is Something Wrong With the Rig - note, it is never, ever the recording; using this Get Out Of Jail Free card guarantees poor progress. So, if your ego can accept that your system is not the bees knees at this moment, then you can go the next step and try and work out where, and the where can be literally anything, the setup is not as, ummm, well sorted as it should be.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 Defensive engineering/defensive design and/or actual design experience is so very important.

 

 

John's posts here are very good - the above nails the core of the thinking needed ... no matter how well you think you have engineered or implemented something, if the subjective SQ doesn't measure up then you've missed something. Think of it this way ... there is always more that can be extracted from any recording you have right now, in a positive sense - it's your choice whether you wish to pursue that goal or not ...

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

You can make it simple ... something I do, 😉 ... listen, does what you hearing Always Sound Right - if Yes, then Enjoy, 😁 ... if No, then there is Something Wrong With the Rig - note, it is never, ever the recording; using this Get Out Of Jail Free card guarantees poor progress. So, if your ego can accept that your system is not the bees knees at this moment, then you can go the next step and try and work out where, and the where can be literally anything, the setup is not as, ummm, well sorted as it should be.

 

I strong disagree with the section in bold.

 

Using one of your beloved car analogies, some roads (recordings) are like this:

 

 

No futzing around with the car (the rig) is going to provide a satisfactory driving experience here.

 

[yamamoto2002]

5 hours ago, Blake said:

1. PS Audio has the Audio Precision Analyzer.  Paul says the AP will show no measured differences when Ted Smith updates operating system code for PS Audio's Directstream DAC, yet it seems users definitely hear differences between different firmware code versions.

 

I have this kind of experience. It is super weird, people hear 'sound difference' of every released version, even with the corner case bug fix that code runs only on metadata processing (it runs on file header loading, before playback starts) fix, that bug causes app crash when conditions are met.

 

Then, I wrote changelog what is changed on every release and put source code change history link, and this kind of sound difference email is reduced significantly.

 

It seems, people hear sound difference when new version is released without enough information of the revision changes, for people to judge the change causes sound difference or not, and people judge reasonably when enough information is available.

Also it seems people do read app changelog more carefully than I thought!

 

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I strong disagree with the section in bold.

 

Using one of your beloved car analogies, some roads (recordings) are like this:

 

 

No futzing around with the car (the rig) is going to provide a satisfactory driving experience here.

 

 

Nothing like going for an 'extreme' example to try and rebut a point, 😉 ... yes, I could make a recording completely unlistenable to too, by running it through a distortions effect unit, and then compressing and clipping it to an inch of its life ... but I'm starting with the premise that the recording was released in a form such that it was intended to please people in the listening - perhaps I was unreasonable making that assumption, 🙂 ?

 

The futzing with the system is intended to remove every shred of 'personality' that the playback chain has - the goal is for it to be 100% neutral; never achievable, but it can be "good enough", I've found. What happens then is that the listening brain only has to deal with the idiosyncrasies of the recording itself, which just happens to be acceptable to the ear/brain, provided every last shred of detail in the recording is faithfully conveyed ... IME.

 

I could make a huge list of recordings that were 'awful', or marginal to listen to, that I own - when I first acquired them, and had a listen. One by one they toppled off the plateau of unpleasantness, as I made progress in tweaking a setup, and understood what was actually on the recording. But I won't ... 😁

[mansr]

40 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I strong disagree with the section in bold.

 

Using one of your beloved car analogies, some roads (recordings) are like this:

 

 

No futzing around with the car (the rig) is going to provide a satisfactory driving experience here.

[rickca]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is an example of why changes are coming. People feel stifled if others disagree, leading people to stop posting altogether. Not everyone and not every disagreement, but too often the disagreement just can't be said in a way that's acceptable. Many people are just rude to others. The only answer is to give them their own space to be rude. 

Sounds kind of like Fox News. Or MSN.  I can't watch either of them.

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

Frank's rig?

[fas42]

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

Good example of why it's not always a great idea being the first in a queue ... 🙂

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, rickca said:

In reply to The Computer Audiophile

The only answer is to give them their own space to be rude. 

 

 Another unaffiliated forum perhaps ?

[Racerxnet]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Another unaffiliated forum perhaps ?

Why,

Are you the only one who's opinion counts??

 

MAK

[kumakuma]

47 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Another unaffiliated forum perhaps ?

 

Let us know where you end up.